If she campaigns nationwide the way she does in Massachusetts, she’ll be gone pretty soon. In her senate campaign, she didn’t get to several major cities in the state, and the one televised debate I saw, she repeated her stump speech over and over and never argued with anything her opponent said. As far as policy issues go, I think she’s doing a good job in the senate, and she should stay there. The Democrats can find someone who’s better at campaigning.

I can’t see she will appeal to many except some affluent females. She claims to be going to battle for the so-called underprivileged. Do you think that many underprivileged would really trust her, a Harvard Law prof. with a long history of dishonesty? She seems a lot less sincere than Hillary & that is saying something.

I cheated on the several — what I know for sure is that she didn’t go to Fall River. She probably thinks that having been to New Bedford is good enough, but for people who live in Fall River, it isn’t anything like the same.

Why would voters in Fall River care about candidates making brief visits to their city? Shouldn’t they make their decision based on the candidates’ positions on the issues that they consider to be most important?